Are there religions that are wrong?

[Rio Rebel]

The first question is in defining what the religions ARE, and what they CLAIM. Can you be a Christian and deny that Jesus was born from a virgin? How about if you deny that Jesus was divine? Or if you deny that He rose from the dead?

Once you establish the above criteria, THEN you can make statements about its veracity.

For example, if you are willing to define Christianity in the traditional sense, then you MUST accept at least the last two questions as true. If you are willing to call Christianity simply those who follow the teachings of Christ, then you can deny all of those questions, but you must still claim that there WAS a historical Jesus. If that fact is false, then the religion would be false.

Only by watering down all religions and taking away any truth value - a "death by 1,000 qualifications", if you will - can you allow them all to exist without contradicting each other.

Very plainly, unless you attempt to change the clear intent of the assertions of these religions, you MUST say that at least some are false.

 

[Triumph]

<< As things are now, religions (who are based on the existance of (a) god(s)) are at this moment most likely to be wrong. >>



such an Objective statement. i would say that You are most likely wrong. the thing that bothers me most about athiests is that they deem anyone who believes in an all-powerful being to be &quot;close-minded&quot;. yet they themselves won't even open their own minds up to the possibility. sound contradictory? that's because it is.

on a side note, Rio Rebel said something extremely interesting about the subjectivity/objectivity of it all. give's me something to think about. thanks!

 

[Raspewtin]

<< Some religions do not deal with creation, god, afterlife, etc, and only deal with how to live day-to-day life, and never deal with unknowable issues. >>





<< Please, list them. I can't think of one that has the characteristics you describe. >>



BobberFett:

The sect of Buddhism I am part of is one example. Also, from what I understand, Scientology is another one. I have not read a lot on Scientology, however.

 

[gunf1ghter]

such an Objective statement. i would say that You are most likely wrong. the thing that bothers me most about athiests is that they deem anyone who believes in an all-powerful being to be &quot;close-minded&quot;. yet they themselves won't even open their own minds up to the possibility. sound contradictory? that's because it is

Can we please avoid another Theist vs. Atheist thread?

I think that both Theists and Atheists are capable of intelligent discussion of this subject without resorting to name calling and generalizations.

 

[Rio Rebel]

<< I think that both Theists and Atheists are capable of intelligent discussion of this subject without resorting to name calling and generalizations. >>



Your optimism is remarkable...

 

[Elledan]

<<
such an Objective statement. i would say that You are most likely wrong. the thing that bothers me most about athiests is that they deem anyone who believes in an all-powerful being to be &quot;close-minded&quot;. yet they themselves won't even open their own minds up to the possibility. sound contradictory? that's because it is.>>

FYI: I'm not an Atheist, I'm a Buddhist.

Unfortunately, I do consider many religious people to be narrow-minded. There's no way you can deny that, for people who call every event an 'act of god' are so limited in their thoughts that it makes you so sad. When you talk to them, they just keep ranting about how great their god is, etc. Anyone ever noticed that religious people usually give either the same standard answers or start quoting parts of the holy book which comes bundled with their religion? If that isn't an example of narrow-mindedness, what is?

 

[BoberFett]

Raspewtin

Correct me if I'm wrong, which I could be since I'm no religious expert. But doesn't Buddhism deny the existence of a soul? That seems to be an opinion on the unknowable.

 

[gunf1ghter]

Actually Buddhism split into two schools a couple thousand years ago.

One school (the big boat) now believes in a kind of &quot;happy smiling Buddha in an afterlife&quot; kind of concept that would be familiar to certain sects of Christianity or Islam. It's more complicated than that, but I digress. This school is the Therevadin school of Buddhism.

The other school of Buddhism (little boat) adheres more strictly to the actual teachings and experiences of the Buddha who was more or less an Agnostic and some of his quotations can be described as Atheistic in nature (such as his discourse on what happens to one when they die).

The reason for two schools is essentially that when the Buddha died, his monks split up... some decided they weren't in it for the spiritual and intellectual fullfillment and where more than happy to set up temples, etc, for the masses of former Hindus who were looking to worship the Buddha as a God.

The Buddha's biggest fear during his lifetime (it seems to me) was his fear of being deified after his own death.

 

[Raspewtin]

BoberFett:

Here is an interesting description of the Buddhist philosophy regarding the soul. Basically, most Buddhists feel the only way you can know your true self is through Enlightenment.

 

[luv2chill]

l2c

 

[Comp10]

Someone's religion is only wrong if they are 100% sure its right.

 

[Moonbeam]

Would I ever call somebodies religion wrong? Not on a good day. Religion is a bridge to another reality. There a million bridges and almost no crossing, but more cross that go through the chasm without a bridge. I don't make it a practice to kick down people's bridges even if they aren't using them. A bridge is sacred, but only because of the crossing. He who is certain about his religion, his politics, his country, his anything is a menace to the rest of life.

edit: LOL Comp 10

 

[Aihyah]

They all think they are right, thats all that matters

 

[~zonker~]

Forget where I heard this. A gentlman from India I believe.

God gave man the truth, the Devil said &quot;let me organize that for you&quot;

A more useful question to me in qualifying the veracity or usefulness of a religion is it's ability to engender a sense of peace and love in its followers.

 

[Mday]

yeah, i believe that religions requiring sacrifices are wrong...

of &quot;wrong&quot; for me, is not necessarily &quot;wrong&quot; for you...

anyway...

to continue... any religion that worships anything besides Mday is completely wrong =)

 

[AndrewR]

Sorry about not coming back sooner -- really did plan on it.

By &quot;wrong&quot; I was referring to an objective viewpoint, not one based on one's own religion.

To those that say no religion can be defined as such, do you therefore condone a religion which calls for the sacrifice of virgin girls? Or the sacrifice of human beings, preferably unwilling ones? sandorski came closest to it by mentioning Heaven's Gate. Is the path to salvation, however you define it, through brain washing and ultimately suicide? Was Jim Jones correct in his actions? Was the Solaar Temple?

Is Scientology right?

Rio Rebel: You're wrong in the statement that Western Christianity says that the only path to salvation is through Jesus Christ, at least in terms of Roman Catholicism. Those who do not believe in Christ CAN still make it to Heaven, though the path is different (and I believe more difficult). We only touched on that recently (my wife is converting, taking a class right now); however, it meshes with my belief (reiterated in another thread) that God manifests Himself in many ways to many different people. I see your point in your statement, and it's a valid one. However, I wanted to clarify the categorical nature of that statement.

 

[bobtist]

They can't all be right. And since I am 100% sure of that, I must be wrong, right?? hehe... You guys covered this already.

 

[myputer]

We're all screwed.........

 

[JBAR]

Allow me to insert a thousand cliches into this discussion.

 

[Rio Rebel]

Andrew,

Most Catholics do not hold that position. I personally do, and I think many (if not most) of the clergy now believe that. But considering the whole, including all of the laity, it is not the belief of the majority.

And when you add up all of denominations of Christianity, the overwhelming majority hold to that belief, that salvation comes only through Jesus.

I appreciate your point - I went through RCIA a few years ago, and have been teaching in the classes since. You will find it very different in different parishes. This is a surprise to Protestants, coming from denominations which are centered in their doctrine. If Catholicism is centered on any one thing, it is the mass itself. Changing doctrine doesn't seem to worry Catholics the way it does most Protestants. It's an interesting distinction.

 

[limsandy]

Hmmm, I think what andrewR is trying to ask is if there are any religions which are good/bad. Then again, define good/bad so that we can express our opinions.

 

[poop]

If you hold spiritual beliefs, it is required that you think all other beliefs are wrong. This is the nature of true faith. So if you truly believe that Jesus is the path to salvation, then you imherently believe all others are false. That is the nature of knowing the truth (or what you believe to be Truth). You can only know something if you also know it's opposite.

ie, what is dark without light? Good without bad? This extends to religion. How can you believe you are right if you don't think anyone is wrong?

So when someone says &quot;I am a Christian, but I think non Christians can get into heaven.&quot; they are not Christians. They are something like a Christian, but not a true Christian.

Please note that the above is true if you believe in logic. There seem to be a vast numer of irrational people here in religious threads.

 

[limsandy]

Good point, poop.
I believe in logic.

 

[Comp10]

<< So if you truly believe that Jesus is the path to salvation, then you imherently believe all others are false. >>



<< ie, what is dark without light? Good without bad? This extends to religion. How can you believe you are right if you don't think anyone is wrong? >>

Just because someone believes Jesus is a path to salvation doesn't mean he has to be the only path. I believe I can get to the top of a mountain by walking, but I also believe someone could get there by taking another path or by driving to the top. Normal problems such as that often have more than one solution, so why shouldn't that also apply to reaching heaven (or enlightenment, or whatever you choose to call it)?

 

[poop]

If you believe that there are multiple paths, then you don't really believe in any single truth. To believe in a single path is to negate all others. To believe in many paths is to not believe in anything definite at all.



<< Just because someone believes Jesus is a path to salvation doesn't mean he has to be the only path. >>

If a person really believes Jesus is the path, then that person must believe Jesus is the only path. Or that person is part of a new religion that I have never heard of. I am speaking of christianity. Christians believe that Jesus=saltvation. There is no other means for salvation in a purely Christian belief system. Jesus himself said that he was the only way to Heaven. If you believe Jesus, then you should probably follow what he said.